In a stock pitch, you’ll spend most of your time and energy on the Catalysts, Valuation, and Investment Risks because you want to express a VERY different view of the company.

For example, the company’s stock price is $100, but you believe it’s worth only $50 because it’s about to report earnings 80% lower than expectations.

Therefore, you recommend shorting the stock. You also recommend purchasing call options at an exercise price of $125 to limit your losses to 25% if the stock moves in the opposite direction.

In an equity research report, you’ll still express a view of the company that’s different from the consensus, but your view won’t be dramatically different.

You’ll spend more time on the Company Background and Valuation sections, and far less time and space on the Catalysts and Risk Factors. And you won’t even write a Worst-Case Scenario section.

If a company seems overvalued by 50%, a research analyst would probably write a “Hold” recommendation, say that there’s “uncertainty around several customers,” and claim that the company’s current market value is appropriate.

Oh, and by the way, one risk factor is that the company might report lower-than-expected earnings.

The Four Main Differences in Equity Research

The main differences are as follows:

1) There’s More Emphasis on Recent Results and Announcements

For example, how does a recent product announcement, clinical trial result, or earnings report impact the company?

You’ll almost always see recent news and updates on the first page of a research report:

These factors may play a role in hedge fund stock pitches as well, but more so in short recommendations since timing is more important there.

To be fair, many analysts do give target prices in different cases, which is an improvement:

4) The Investment Thesis, Catalysts, and Risk Factors Are “Looser”

These sections tend to be “afterthoughts” in most reports.

For example, the bank might give a few reasons why it expects the company’s share price to rise: the company will capture more market share than expected, it will be able to increase its product prices more rapidly than expected, and a competitor is about to go bankrupt.

However, the sell-side analyst will not tie these factors to specific share-price impacts as a buy-side analyst would.

Similarly, the report might mention catalysts and investment risks, but there won’t be a link to a specific valuation impact from each factor.

So the typical stock pitch logic (“We think there’s a 50% chance of gaining 80% and a 50% chance of losing 20%”) won’t be spelled out explicitly:

Your Sample Equity Research Reports

To illustrate these concepts, I’m sharing two equity research reports from our financial modeling courses:

We started by creating traditional HF/AM stock pitches and valuations and then made our views weaker in the research reports.

The Typical Sections

So let’s briefly go through the main sections of these reports, using the two examples above:

Page 1: Update, Rating, Price Target, and Recent Results

The first page of an “Update” report states the bank’s recommendation (Buy, Hold, or Sell, sometimes with slightly different terminology), and gives recent updates on the company.

For example, in both these reports we reference recent earnings results from the companies and expectations for the next fiscal year:

We also give a “target price,” explain where it comes from, and give our estimates for the company’s key financial metrics.

We mention catalysts in both reports, but we don’t link anything to a specific valuation impact.

One problem with providing a specific “target price” is that it must be based on specific multiples and specific assumptions in a DCF or DDM.

So with Jazz, we explain that the $170.00 target is based on 20.7x and 15.3x EV/EBITDA multiples for the comps, and a discount rate of 8.07% and Terminal FCF growth rate of 0.3% in the DCF.

Next: Operations and Financial Summary

Next, you’ll see a section with lots of graphs and charts detailing the company’s financial performance, market share, and important metrics and ratios.

For a pharmaceutical company like Jazz, you might see revenue by product, pricing and # of patients per product per year, and EBITDA margins.

For a commercial bank like Shawbrook, you might see loan growth, interest rates, interest income and net income, and regulatory capital figures such as the Common Equity Tier 1 (CET 1) and Tangible Common Equity (TCE) ratios:

This section of the report explains how the research analyst/associate forecast the company’s performance and came up with the numbers used in the valuation.

Valuation

The valuation section is the one that’s most similar in a research report and a stock pitch.

In both fields, you explain how you arrived at the company’s implied value, which usually involves pasting in a DCF or DDM analysis and comparable companies and transactions.

The methodologies are the same, but the assumptions might differ substantially.

In research, you’re also more likely to point to specific multiples, such as the 75th percentile EV/EBITDA multiple, and explain why they are the most meaningful ones.

For example, you might argue that since the company’s growth rates and margins exceed the medians of the set, it deserves to be valued at the 75th percentile multiples rather than the median multiples:

Investment Thesis, Catalysts, and Risks

This section is short, and it is more of an afterthought than anything else.

We do give reasons for why these companies might be mis-priced, but the reasoning isn’t that detailed.

For example, in the Shawbrook report we state that the U.K. mortgage market might slow down and that regulatory changes might reduce the market size and the company’s market share:

Those are legitimate catalysts, but the report doesn’t explain their share-price impact in the same way that a stock pitch would.

Finally, banks present Investment Risks mostly so they can say, “Well, we warned you there were risks and that our recommendation might be wrong.”

By contrast, buy-side analysts present Investment Risks so they can say, “There is a legitimate chance we could lose 50% – let’s hedge against that risk with options or other investments so that our fund does not collapse.”

How These Reports Both Differ from the Corresponding Stock Pitches

The Jazz equity research report corresponds to a “Long” pitch that’s much stronger:

We estimate its intrinsic value as $180 – $220 / share, up from $170 in the report.

We estimate the per-share impact of each catalyst: price increases add 15% to the share price, more patients from marketing efforts add 10%, and later-than-expected generics competition adds 15%.

We also estimate the per-share impact from the risk factors and conclude that in the worst case, the company’s share price might decline from $130 to $75-$80. But in all likelihood, even if we’re wrong, the company is simply valued appropriately at $130.

And then we explain how to hedge against these risks with put options.

The same differences apply to the Shawbrook research report vs. the stock pitch, but the stock pitch there is a “Short” recommendation where we claim that the company is overvalued by 30-50%.

And that sums up the differences perfectly: A Short recommendation with 30-50% downside in a stock pitch turns into a “Hold” recommendation with roughly equal upside and downside in a sell-side research report.

What’s in an Equity Research Report?

I’ve been harsh on equity research here, but I don’t want to disparage it too much.

There are many positives: You do get more creativity than in IB, it might be better for hedge fund or asset management exits, and it’s more fun to follow companies than to grind through grunt work on deals.

But no matter how you slice it, most equity research reports are watered-down stock pitches.

So, make sure you understand the “strong stuff” first before you downgrade – even if your long-term goal is equity research.

About the Author

Brian DeChesare is the Founder of Mergers & Inquisitions and Breaking Into Wall Street. In his spare time, he enjoys memorizing obscure Excel functions, editing resumes, obsessing over TV shows, traveling like a drug dealer, and defeating Sauron.

How do you view the ER industry since the trading commission has been down 50% since 2007. And there are new in coming regulation governing the ER reports have to explicitly priced and funds need to pay for the report explicity rather than as a service comes free with brokerage?

People have been predicting the death of equity research for over a decade, but it’s still here. It may not be around in 100 years, but it will still be around in another 10 years, though it will be smaller and less relevant.

Yes, things are becoming more automated, but the actual job of an equity research analyst or associate hasn’t changed dramatically. A machine can’t speak with investors to assess their sentiment on a company – only humans can do that.

Enter Your Email to Get These Two Sets of Financial Modeling Tutorials for Free!

This website and our partners set cookies on your computer to improve our site and the ads you see. To learn more about what data we collect and your privacy options, see our privacy policy.I Understand